Questions and Replies

Matiase, Mr NS
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

How many officials and/or employees in his department were granted permission to have businesses and/or do business dealings in the past three financial years;
(2) are any of the officials and/or employees that have permission to have businesses and/or do business dealings doing business with the Government; if so, (a) what was the purpose of each business transaction, (b) when did each business transaction occur and (c) what was the value of each business transaction?

2. Table B:Details of employees who had permission to do remunerative work and were found to be doing business with organs of state in 2015/16

Name of Official

Purpose of each business/transaction

When did it happen?

What was the amount/value involved?

Remarks/explanation

1. N Yulu

The official has resigned from the Department and we could not access or trace information on the nature of the transactions with government.

Permission was granted for remunerative work on 06/07/2015.

2015/16

R60 100.00

Deputy Director (Resigned on 30/04/2016.)

NOTES:

The amendments in the new Public Service Regulations of 2016 came into effect on 01 August 2016.

A transitional arrangement was provided for the employees who were doing business with organs of state for six months, ending on 31 January 2017.

All the mentioned employees conducted business with state departments before the effective date of the Public Service Regulations of 2016. Therefore, they were required to comply with the Departmental Policy on Remunerative Work outside employment in the public service and were granted permission.

Matiase, Mr NS
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether (a) his department and/or (b) any entity reporting to him own land; if so, in each case, (i) where is each plot of land located, (ii) what is the size of each specified plot and (iii) what is each plot currently being used for?

Reply:

a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development does not own land. This is in view of the existing legislation that governs the immovable assets in particular State Land Disposal Act No. 48 of 1961 and Government Immovable Asset Management Act No. 19 of 2007.

b) The National Prosecuting Authority, Special Investigating Unit and Legal Aid South Africa have informed me that they do not own any land.

(a) What is the total number of supplier invoices that currently remain unpaid by (i) his department and (ii) each entity reporting to him for more than (aa) 30 days, (bb) 60 days, (cc) 90 days and (dd) 120 days and (b) what is the total amount outstanding in each case?

Reply:

In response to the question on unpaid invoices, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD), National Prosecuting Authority (NPA), Legal Aid South Africa, and Special Investigating Unit (SIU)have informed me as follows:

A. DoJ&CD:

a) For the reporting period ended on 30 October 2017, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development had 22 valid invoices outstanding (Not paid within 30 days) broken down as follows:

a) 30 days: 5 invoices

b) 60 days: 6 invoices

c) 90 days: 1 invoice

d) 120 days: 10 Invoices

b) The total value of the above invoices is R15,816.82 broken down as follows:

aa) 30 days: R2 322.94

bb) 60 days: R2 672.94

cc) 90 days: R422.94

dd) 120 days: R10 398.00

B. Legal Aid SA:

a) The total number of invoices that are unpaid as at 3 November 2017 for Trade and Judicare Suppliers (private lawyers) are reflected according to ageing in Table 1 below:

Table 1:

Number of Invoices

Ageing

Trade

Judicare

Total

30

11

39.3%

25

49.0%

36

45.6%

60

0

0.0%

3

5.9%

3

3.8%

90

1

3.6%

12

23.5%

13

16.5%

120

2

7.1%

1

2.0%

3

3.8%

120+

14

50.0%

10

19.6%

24

30.4%

28

100.0%

51

100.0%

79

100.0%

b) The total value of unpaid invoices for Trade Suppliers and Judicare Suppliers as at 3 November 2017, in the different ageing categories, are reflected in Table 2 below:

Table 2:

Value of Invoices in Rands

Ageing

Trade

Judicare

Total

30

113,407

75.0%

354,670

67.3%

468,077

69.0%

60

0

0.0%

22,325

4.2%

22,325

3.3%

90

34,325

22.7%

83,949

15.9%

118,274

17.4%

120

225

0.1%

1,798

0.3%

2,023

0.3%

120+

3,202

2.1%

64,011

12.2%

67,213

9.9%

151,158

100.0%

526,753

100.0%

677,911

100.0%

It should be noted that invoices that are unpaid for longer than 30 days are as a result of queries that need to be resolved by the supplier. In the main, the banking details of affected suppliers are incorrect and thus payments are rejected. Legal Aid SA is still awaiting appropriate responses from the suppliers.

C) SIU:

The SIU did an analysis of all invoices outstanding at the end of 30 September 2017 which was the last reporting date of the entity before the question from the National Assembly.

The table below reflects the ageing of supplier balances at reporting date:

Comments:

The SIU had a total outstanding balance to suppliers of R9,1 million at the end of September 2017 of which 77% was outstanding for 30 days or less. The remaining balance of 23% is mainly due to the following factors:

R700K – Dispute with landlord on water and lights billing without apportionment of costs on tenant shared premises using meter reading as per contractual agreement. All the invoices outstanding for 62 days and more are related to this supplier. Lease rental costs are settled monthly except for the disputed amount. The SIU is in the process of resolving the issue with the landlord.

R900K – One invoice due to a service provider who supplied the SIU with technical equipment that were going through testing. The invoice was settled in October 2017.

The balance is mainly made up of supplier of travel management services where third party invoices / statement were outstanding for payment. The SIU has an arrangement with the supplier that invoices will only be settled when presented with third party invoices, e.g. invoices from car rental companies, and a statement of account.

D. NPA

a) The NPA has paid 99.5% of all creditors within 30 days during the 2016/17 financial year. The remaining 0.5% relates to disputed invoices.

b) As at the end of October 2017, the NPA had 12 invoices amounting to R97 512.38 that were outstanding for a period of more than 30 days. Below are the details of the relevant invoices:

(a) In what ways is overcrowding in correctional service facilities hampering programmes for the rehabilitation of prisoners and (b) what plans does his department have in place to address each challenge?

Reply:

The Branch Incarceration and Corrections contributes to the strategy through the provision of Correctional Programmes to sentenced offenders with Correctional Sentence Plans (CSPs) in line with section 38 of the Correctional Service Act 111 of 1998. Correctional Programmes are needs based and have been developed specifically to deal with identified offending behaviour and are aimed at bringing about behavioural changes; acceptance of positive values and morals; increased knowledge on certain topics; the acquisition of life skills and ultimate improved mental and physical health.

There are thirteen (13) endorsed Correctional Programmes:

New Beginnings Orientation

Anger Management (Anger In Anger Out)

Cross Roads (sourced)

Restorative Justice Orientation

Preparatory Programme on Sexual Offences

Substance Abuse (Stop to Start)

Behaviour Modification Programme on Gangsterism

Economic Crime Programme (fraud related)

Economic Crime Programme (theft related)

Programme on Murder and related offences (Changing Lanes)

Programme on Robbery and related offences (Change is possible)

Correctional Programme for Female Offenders

Pre-Release

Correctional programmes are facilitated by CIOs on an interim basis due to absence of a permanent financed structure.

The department is in the process of improving participation of offenders in skills development programmes and formal education by amongst others, implementing the following:

Improve the current recruitment drive to appoint more skills development practitioners at operational level and to also expedite the finalisation of Occupational Specific Dispensation (OSD) for educators in order to attract more educators.

Enhance partnership with external stakeholders in order to augment the limited DCS resources (i.e. shortage of educators, shortage of training equipment’s and learning material, increase training opportunities) for the training and development of offenders. There is improvement in the rendering of training interventions as a result of established external partnerships with the following; National Skills Fund, UNISA, Safety and Security Sector Education and Training (SASSETA), Department of Higher Education and Training (DHET) as well as Technical, Vocational, Education and Training (TVET) Colleges.

The Department is rendering Spiritual Care programmes and services on a daily basis through maximization of the space, e.g. sharing school areas and dining halls and use open areas for the spiritual empowerment of offenders.

With reference to his reply to question number 1761 on 11 July 2017, was there a threat and risk assessment conducted which recommended that the National Director of Public Prosecution be awarded VIP security through the SA Police Service; if not, on what basis is the specified security provided; if so, (a) on what date was the specified assessment done, (b) what were the recommendations of the specified threat assessment, (c) on what date will the situation next be reviewed and (d) will he make a copy of the threat assessment report available to Mr Z N Mbhele?

Reply:

The provision and implementation of close-in-transit protection services, is provided to the National Director of Public Prosecutions. This was done after a Threats and Risk Assessment have been done many years back and has been the norm with all other predecessors appointed to hold the same office. Security services are therefore provided to the Office of the NDPP, irrespective of the person holding such office at any time. Threats and Risk Assessments are done as and when required and the outcome thereof will determine the kind of security required. Threat assessment reports remain confidential.

(1) What is the date of the last medical assessment (a) undertaken by and (b) available to his department with regard to the health of the parolee Mr Shabir Shaik?
(2) whether the specified person’s condition is still considered to be terminal; if not, what steps has his department taken to review the parole status of the specified person; if so, what is the current prognosis with regard to life expectancy;
(3) what (a) is the last date on which the parole conditions of the specified person were reviewed and (b) are the details of the parole conditions that are currently applicable;
(4) has the specified person strictly complied with the conditions of parole; if not, what (a) are the relevant details of the infringement(s) and (b) steps has his department taken in this regard?

Reply:

(1)(a) & (b) The last medical assessment by The Department of Correctional Services for parolee Mr. Shabir Shaik was conducted before he was released on medical parole on 03 March 2009.

2. The condition of the parolee is still viewed to be terminal. Medical parole was granted in terms of the provisions of Section 79 of the Correctional Services Act, Act No. 111 of 1998, before it was amended. Therefore, he was considered in terms of the then applicable legislation. The medical parole legislation was reviewed and Section 14 of the Correctional Services Amendment Act, Act No. 5 of 2011, which introduced the new medical parole system, came into effect on 01 March 2012. At the time the person in question was diagnosed as being in the final phase of a terminal disease.

(3)(a) Parole conditions were last reviewed on the 24 April 2015

(3)(b) Mr. Shabir Shaik is on house arrest with relaxing conditions namely:

Attending school functions for his son 17h00 to 19h00.

Working hours from 08h00 t0 18h30 – Monday to Friday.

Attending sports once a week from 12h00 to 19h00.

If he has to travel outside the Province, then he has to apply for leave of absence like any other offender.

Whether any staff of (a) his department and (b) each entity reporting to him were awarded any contracts or agreements to conduct business with any state entity in the (i) 2014-15, (ii) 2015-16 and (iii) 2016-17 financial years; if so, what are the (aa)(aaa) names and (bbb) professional designations of the staff members and (bb)(aaa) details of the contract(s) and/or agreement(s) awarded and (bbb) amounts in each case?

Reply:

(a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has responded as follows:

(i) Table A below gives details of employees who were found to be doing business with organs of state by the Auditor-General in 2014/15.

Name of Official

Designation

Organ of State

Name of theSupplier

Order No.

Amount

Ramaoka M.N

Administration Clerk (Resigned on 2017/01/31)

National Department of Sport and Recreation

Makhurumola Itlhabanele Business

Not available

R0.00

Mbowane A

Assistant Master (Resigned on 2014/12/31)

National Department Correctional Services

Nchiruleng trading enterprise

Not available

Not available

Afrika BH

Senior Court Interpreter

South African Police Service

Biometric Enhancement Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Not available

R859 357.83

Mashego. BK

Director/senior manager

Small Enterprise Development Agency

Kholo Monyane Trading Enterprise

Not available

R0.00

Maja MP

Director/senior manager

Food and Beverages Manufacturing Industry

Bakhethwa Solutions And Investments

Not available

R0.00

Mmbadi LS

Director/senior manager

Eskom Holdings Ltd

Booi Holdings

Not available

Not available

Jacobs J

No record is found on DoJ&CD’s Persal as the official is currently stationed at the Office of the Chief Justice.

City of Johannesburg Metro

Constitution Hill Development

Not available

R6 840.00

Gwadiso SS

Director (Resigned on 2017/05/31)

Amatole District Municipality

Beam Marketing & Promotions CC

Not available

R0.00

Kgomo. TFJ

Director (Retirement on 2017/04/30)

South African Police Service

Kgophamorama Management Services & Projects CO

Not available

R215.00

Bhikha SV

Principal Legal Admin Officer (Retirement on 2015/07/31)

Financial and Accounting Services SETA

Public Finance IQ

Not available

R0.00

Samaai S

Principal Legal Admin Officer (Contract expiry on 2015/10/15)

Destination Marketing Organisation

X Con Films

Not available

R0.00

Bodigelo JT

E-scheduler Clerk

Ngwathe Local Municipality

Batho Pele Funeral Parlour

Not available

R6 900.00

Choshane. ML

Chief Registry Clerk

Fetakgomo Local Municipality

Mogodumane Funeral Parlour and Undertakers

Not available

-R3 918.00

Lebelo J.M

Administration Clerk

Limpopo Department of Health

Dimpho Mahlatse Service Provider

Not available

R2 250.00

Khoza N

Chief Accounting Clerk

Ehlanzeni District Municipality

Sebenzani Trading 59

Not available

R6 346.00

Hlongwane. SP

Administration Clerk

Ezemvelo Local Municipality

Ukumhlophe Investment trading

Not available

R0.00

Mohalanyane. MJ

Digital criminal recording systems(DCRS) Administration Clerk

Office of the Premier of Limpopo Province

Mohalanyane General Trading

Not available

R9 800.00

Bonokwane NM

Senior Administration Clerk (Resigned on 2017/04/30)

Ratlou Local Municipality

The Mary's Bed and Breakfast

Not available

R2 855.00

Chita DB

Administration Clerk

Legal Aid South Africa

Future Selling Photocopies papers

Not available

-R1 000.00

Mokoena GM

Administration Clerk

Maluti A Phofung Local Municipality

Thabadimahlwa trading and projects

Not available

R1 980.00

Mashinini JH

Administrative Officer

Phumelela Local Municipality

Happyguza Construction and Projects

Not available

-R1 700.00

Baca S

Administration Clerk

South African Police Service

Back to Back Trading Enterprise cc

Not available

R9 240.00

Kgomo MA

Administration Clerk

South African Social Security Agency

Motlhala Nala General Trading

Not available

R231.25

Gonyela S

Maintenance Investigator

OR Tambo District Municipality

Sirgo Trading Enterprise

Not available

R379 553.00

Maphanga LP

Accounting Clerk

Department of Defence

Lefa Phangos Trading Enterprise

Not available

R17 229.00

Masilela PN

Administration Clerk

MP: Public Works Roads & Trans

TVLN

Not available

R25 100.00

Masilela BV

Administration Clerk

South African Police Service

Botshelo & Naledi Enterprise (Pty) Ltd

Not available

R55 798.50

Sepheu MR

Audit Manager

Agricultural Research Council

Robsmethi Trading Enterprise

Not available

R112 300.00

NB: During the 2014/15 financial year, public servants were not prohibited from conducting business with the organs of the State, provided that they obtained permission from the executive authority to perform other remunerative work outside employment in the public service. The Department could therefore not take corrective action against any of the officials listed above for conducting business with organs of state. Furthermore, it should benoted that the Department relies on the Office of the Auditor-General in respect to the amounts of the transactions/contracts.

(ii) Table Bbelow gives details of employees who were found to be doing business with organs of state by the Auditor general in 2015/16.

Name of Official

Designation

Organ of State

Name of the Supplier

Order No.

Amount

OT Muthen-Kanyinda

Administrative Officer (Resigned on 2016/03/31)

Transnet TFR

Chee Trading

Not available

R341 489.00

SP Hlongwane

Administration Clerk

Ezemvelo Wild Life

Luyandas Trading

Not available

R352 000.00

SR Khambule

Deputy Director: Financial Management

LP: Pub Works Roads & Infrastructure

Blue Stone Design (Pty) Ltd

Not available

R125 957.00

SP Hlongwane

Administration Clerk

South African Social Security Agency

Ukumhlophe Investment Trading

Not available

R73 166.00

DT Myeni

Registry Clerk

Safety and Security SETA

Shemula Trading Enterprise

Not available

R187 500.00

MZ Tibane

Messenger

NAT: SASSA – Mpumalanga

IT Minds

Not available

R470 750.00

MS Seema

Audit Manager

Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Tshwane Micro Enterpreneurs League Projects Co-Operative Lim

Not available

R18 720.00

MR Sepheu

Audit Manager

Agricultural Research Council

Robsmethi Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd

Not available

R9 851.00

N Yulu

Deputy Director (Resigned on 2016/04/30)

SA Maritime Safety Authority

Yulu Media Sound and Entertainment (PTY) LTD

Not available

R60 100.00

M Ngcobo

Assistant Director

GP: Human Settlement

Mthomakhathini (Pty) Ltd

Not available

R120 000.00

NP Ndlovu

Administration Clerk (Contract expiry on 2016/02/29)

Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Zele Solution (Pty) Ltd

Not available

R114 408.00

NP Ndlovu

Administration Clerk (Contract expiry on 2016/02/29)

Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Patrosa Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Not available

R150 527.00

OT Muthen-Kanyinda

Administrative officer (Resigned on 2016/03/31)

Transnet TFR

Chee Trading

Not available

R341 489.00

SP Hlongwane

Administration Clerk

Ezemvelo Wild Life

Luyandas Trading

Not available

R352 000.00

SR Khambule

Deputy Director: Financial Management

LP: Pub Works Roads & Infrastructure

Blue Stone Design (Pty) Ltd

Not available

R125 957.00

SP Hlongwane

Administration Clerk

South African Social Security Agency

Ukumhlophe Investment Trading

Not available

R73 166.00

DT Myeni

Registry Clerk

Security Seta

Shemula Trading Enterprise

Not available

R187 500.00

NB: During the 2015/16 financial year, public servants were not prohibited from conducting business with the organs of the State, provided that they obtained permission from the executive authority to perform other remunerative work outside employment in the public service.

(iii) Table C below gives details of employees who were found to be doing business with organs of state by the National Treasury in 2016/17.

Name of Official

Designation

Organ of the State

Name of the Supplier

Order No.

Amount

Ndivhuwo Enerst Nemusimbori

Legal Researcher

Government Communication and Information Systems - National

Enerst Trading and Projects

OR-078106

R7 368.00

Ndivhuwo Enerst Nemusimbori

Higher Education and Training - National

Enerst Trading and Projects

OR-013115

R44 100.00

Ndivhuwo Enerst Nemusimbori

Higher Education and Training - National

Enerst Trading and Projects

OR-013272

R885.80

Ndivhuwo Enerst Nemusimbori

Human Settlements - National

Enerst Trading and Projects

DH-024551

R3 542.50

Dumisani Bathwell Tuis

Court Manager

Correctional Services - National

Linche Cleaning And Catering Services

CL-004662

R16 892.60

Dumisani Bathwell Tuis

Correctional Services - National

Linche Cleaning And Catering Services

CL-004691

R15 798.00

Motlatsi Abel Tsubane

Senior Court Interpreter

Home Affairs - National

Khazimla Services

WC-003162

R2 425.00

Petronella Andricka Freeman

Court Intermediary

Correctional Services - National

Gaz Dealer And Services

UP-005543

R14 750.00

Petronella Andricka Freeman

Roads and Public Works - Northern Cape

Gaz Dealer And Services

SY-001296

R489 000.00

NB: The prohibition of employees from conducting business with organs of the State came into effect in August 2016 (subject to a six months transition period, starting from the date of implementation of the Public Service Regulations on 01 August 2016 to allow affected public servant to round up their activities or resign their Directorships from supplier companies with existing contracts with an organ of the state). In the circumstances, even an official who has obtained permission from the Executive Authority to perform other remunerative work outside employment in the Public Service cannot rely on such permission to conduct business with an organ of the state.

(b) The entities of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development reported as follows:

(i) Special Investigating Unit (SIU):

The SIU has informed that according to the SIU integrity Unit, it is confirmed that no-one within the SIU who is doing business with the State 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years..

(ii) National Prosecuting Authority (NPA)

The NPA has confirmed that no member in its employ was awarded any contracts or agreements to conduct business with any state entity during the periods concerned, nor is any member of the NPA conducting any business with an organ of state2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years.

(iii) Legal Aid South Africa

None of Legal Aid South Africa’s staff was awarded any contracts or agreements to conduct business with any state entity in the 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years.

(c) The Department of Correctional Services has confirmed that no member in its employ was awarded any contracts or agreements to conduct business with any state entity during the periods concerned.

Mbabama, Ms TM
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Does (a) he, (b) his Deputy Ministers or (c) any of the heads of entities or bodies reporting to him make use of security services paid for by the State for (i) him/herself, (ii) his/her immediate family members or (iii) any of their staff members; in each case (aa) what are the reasons for it, (bb) from which department or entity’s budget is the security services being paid, and (cc) what are the relevant details?

Reply:

a) and b) My security arrangements and those of the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, as well as the Deputy Minister of Correctional Services remain the responsibility of the South African Police Service (SAPS) in terms of the Ministerial Handbook.

c) The response in respect of the heads of entities or bodies reporting to the me is as follows:

The Chief Justice, Deputy Chief Justice and the Judge Presidents do make use of security services paid for by the State through South African Police Service as required in terms of the Ministerial Handbook.

National Prosecuting Authority – The National Director of Public Prosecution make use of services paid for by the State through the South African Police Services at the moment.

Legal Aid South Africa – The Head of Legal Aid South Africa does not make use of security services.

Special Investigation Unit – The Head of the Special Investigating Unit does not make use of security services at the moment.

The Director General of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development does not make use of security services at the moment.

The National Commissioner of Department of Correctional Services does use security services at the State expense.

The Secretary-General for the Office of the Chief Justice does not make use of security services at the moment.

(i) There are no security services that are rendered to the family members on all of the above.

(ii) There are members of the Judiciary, National Prosecuting Authority and some support staff that make use of security services and the services are not extended to family members.

(aa) In all of the above, the reasons for the provision of security services, where applicable, are informed by the threats received due to their legal duties.

(bb) (i) Those members that are indicated in the Ministerial Handbook as stated above, the budget for the provision of the security services required is being paid from the South African Police Service’s budget.

(bb) (ii) The other affected members of the Judiciary, National Prosecuting Authority and supporting staff making use of security services are paid for by the State through the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.

(bb) (iii) The National Commissioner for the Department of Correctional Services’ security services are paid for by the relevant Department of Correctional Services.

(cc) The relevant details about protection services as indicated above is mainly informed by the heightened threats, risks and vulnerability assessments that are inherent in their legal duties which cannot be ignored in the interest of justice and other constitutional requirements. Therefore, it is advisable that the details pertaining to each member be not disclosed for safety and security reasons. Furthermore, the doctrine of separation of powers dictates consideration in relation to the provision of protection and security services to members of the Judiciary and National Prosecuting Authority.

Has the Special Investigation Unit (SIU) ever conducted any investigations into a certain person (name and details furnished); if so (a) when was the investigation(s) commissioned and (b) what is the current status of the specified investigation(s);
(2) whether he will furnish Ms T E Baker with copies of the reports of the investigation(s); if not, why not; if so, by what date?

Reply:

I have been informed by the Head of the Special Investigation Unit that a similar question was posed to the Presidency during May 2017, a copy of which is attached hereto, where-in the SIU answered as follows:

1. It would appear that the Proclamation referred to, issued by the Presidency to commence with investigations, relates to Proclamation R35 of 2008. This Proclamation related to the Mhlatuzi Water Board in Richards Bay, of which Ms Myeni was the Chairperson at the time.

a) The investigation was proclaimed in 2008.

b) The investigation was duly completed and the report was submitted to the Presidency in April 2013.

2. The Honourable Member is advised to direct the request to the Office of the Honourable President, for a copy of such Report, as such Reports are neither submitted to nor kept by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services.

Matiase, Mr NS
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether (a) his department and (b) each entity reporting to him appointed transaction advisors for tenders in the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016; if so, (i) who were the transaction advisors that were appointed for the tenders, (ii) for which tenders were they appointed, (iii) what was the pricing for the tenders in question and (iv) what amount were the transaction advisors paid?

Reply:

I have been informed that neither the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Department of Correctional Services nor its entities reporting to me has appointed transaction advisors for tenders during the period 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2016.

Matiase, Mr NS
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Which entities reporting to him (a) have a board in place and (b) do not have a board in place, (i) of those that have a board, (aa) when was each individual board member appointed and (bb) when is the term for each board lapsing and (ii) how many (aa) board members are there in each board and (bb) of those board members of each entity are female;
(2) with reference to entities that do not have boards in place, (a) who is responsible for appointing the board and (b) when will a board be appointed?

One (1) executive member to serve as an alternative member to the members appointed in terms of Section 6(1)(d)

Ms R Hlabatau

1 March 2016

28 February 2019

8. Section 6(1)(e)

The Director-General: Department of Justice and Constitutional Development or his or her nominee

Advocate PA du Rand (Nominee)

1 March 2016

28 February 2019

(bb) the term of office for the Board members is three (3) years as shown above.

(ii) (aa) The Board of Legal Aid South Africa has a total of fourteen (14) Board Members made up of ten (10) Non-Executive Directors and four (4)

Executive Directors. There are also three (3) Alternative Board Members.

(bb) the Board of Legal Aid South Africa has five (5) females (plus 2 Alternative members).

B. COUNCIL FOR DEBT COLLECTORS

The Council for Debt Collectors has a board or Council Members appointed, in terms of Section 3 of the Debt Collectors Act 1998 (Act No. 114 of 1998), by the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services. The Council, appointed in terms of the Act, consists of ten (10) members, of which three (3) members are females.

The table below provides details of Council Members, i.e. Names, capacity and term of office:

Name

Appointed in terms of which section of the Act

Capacity

Period of Appointment

Start Date

Start Date

1. Ms L S Machaba

Section 3(2)(a)

Chairperson

4 March 2015

3 March 2018

2. Ms J Ntshingila

Section 3(2)(b)(i)

Member

4 March 2015

3 March 2018

3. Mr J C Janse van

Rensburg

Section 3(2)(b)(ii)

Member

4 March 2017

3 March 2020

4. Mr B Maseko

Section 3(2)(b(iii)

Member

4 March 2015

3 March 2018

5. Mr A Olivier

Section 3(2)(b)(iii)

Member

4 March 2015

3 March 2018

6. Mr S Lindsay

Section 3(2)(b)(iii)

Member

4 March 2017

3 March 2020

7. Mr M Lamola

Section 3(2)(b)(iii)

Member

4 March 2015

3 March 2018

8. Adv. P A du Rand

Section 3(2)(b)(iv)

Member

4 March 2015

3 March 2018

9. Mr C Senzani

Section 3(2)(b)(iv)

Member

4 March 2017

3 March 2020

10. Ms M M Viljoen

Section 3(2)(b)(v)

Member

4 March 2015

3 March 2018

C. SOUTH AFRICAN LAW REFORM COMMISSION

(a) (i) The South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) is one of the entities reporting to the Minister of Justice and Correctional Services which has a Board/Commission in place.

Appointed in terms of which Section of the Act

Name of Members Appointed

Capacity

Period of Appointment

Start Date

End Date

Section 2(2) of the South African Law Reform Commission Act 19 of 1973

Judge Jody Kollapen of the Gauteng North Division of the High Court

Chairperson

April 2015

September 2018

Professor V Jaichand (WITS)

Member

September 2013

September 2018

Advocate M Sello (Practicing Advocate)

Member

September 2013

September 2018

Mr IBW Lawrence (Practicing Attorney)

Member

September 2013

September 2018

Ms NT Siwendu (Practicing Attorney)

Member

September 2013

September 2018

Professor Annet Wanyana Oguttu (UNISA)

Member

January 2015

September 2018

Professor Marita Carnelly (UKZN)

Member

January 2015

September 2018

(ii) The Board of the SALRC consists of seven members, and four (4) of the

Commissioners are females.

D. RULES BOARD FOR COURTS OF LAW

(1)(a) The Rules Board is accountable to the Minister in terms of the Act, and has a

Board in place. The table below provides further details in respect to the members and term of office:

Appointed in terms of which Section of the Act

Name of Members Appointed

Capacity

Period of Appointment

Start Date

End Date

In terms of Section 3 of the Rules Board for Courts of Law Act of 1985 (Act No. 107 of 1985)

Judge SA Majiedt

Judge FE Mokgohloa

Ms Jakkie Wessels

Mr Patrick Hundermark

Ms Nosidima Ndlovu

Adv McCaps Motimele SC

Adv. Paul Farlam, SC

Adv. Anthea Platt SC

Prof. Mohamed Paleker

Mr Graham Bellairs (LSSA)

Mr Mashudu Kutama (LSSA)

Mr Asif Essa (Alternate: LSSA)

Mr Rodney Isaacs (DoJ&CD)

Ms Elmarie de Klerk (Magistracy)

Chairperson

Vice- Chairperson

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Alternate Member

Member

Member

Member

Alternate

Member

Member

Member

01 January 2012

6 March 2017

01 January 2012

01 January 2012

01 September 2014

01 January 2012

01 January 2012

01 January 2012

01 January 2012

01 January 2012

01 September 2014

01 September 2014

1 January 2015

1 January 2012

31 December 2017

6 March 2022

31 December 2017

31 December 2017

31 August 2019

31 December 2017

31 December 2017

31 December 2017

31 December 2017

31 December 2017

31 August 2019

31 August 2019

31 December 2020

31 December 2017

(ii) There are twelve (12) Board members plus 2 alternates, in the Rules Board for Courts of Law, five (5) of the members are females.

E. SOUTH AFRICAN BOARD FOR SHERIFFS

Appointed in terms of which Section of the Act

Name of Members Appointed

Capacity

Period of Appointment

Start Date

End Date

In terms of section 9(2) (a) of the Sheriffs Act, 1986 (Act No. 90 of 1986)

Mrs C Mabuza (Sheriff)

Ms P Roodt (Sheriff)

Ms Nomajwara Soga (Sheriff)

Ms Mmathotho Lephadi (Sheriff)

Mr Ignatius Klynsmith (Sheriff)

Chairperson

Member

Member

Member

Member

1 March 2015

1 March 2015

1 March 2015

1 March 2015

1 March 2015

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

In terms of section 9(2) (b) of the Sheriffs Act, 1986 (Act No. 90 of 1986)

Advocate Hishaam Mohamed

Mr Thamsanqa Tembe Sec. 9(2)(c)

Mr Lesiba Mashapa Sec. 9(2)(d)

Prof. Lovell Fernandez Sec 9(2)(e)

Mr Meko Magida Sec. 9(2)(e)

Ms Khunjulwa Sigenu Sec 11(2)(a)

Member and Deputy Chairperson

Member

Member

Member

Member

1 March 2015

1 March 2015

1 March 2015

1 March 2015

1 March 2015

14 April 2016

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

28 February 2018

(b) The following entities reporting to me do not have Boards, and no Boards are envisaged to be appointed:

(i) SPECIAL INVESTIGATING UNIT

Due to the critical work that the Special Investigating Unit (SIU) does, the SIU does not have Board as it is a Schedule III Public entity, with the Accounting Authority fulfilling the role of the Board.

For ease of reference, section of the Public Finance Management Act (PFMA) is quoted below:

Section 49 2 (a) & (b) of the PFMA.

“2. if the public entity -

(a) has a board or other controlling body, that board or controlling body is the accounting authority for that entity or

(b) does not have a controlling body, the chief executive officer or the other person in charge of the public entity is the accounting authority for that public entity unless specific legislation applicable to that public entity designates another person as the accounting authority.”

Furthermore, the SIU’s legislation (the Special Investigating Units and Special Tribunals Act, No 74 of 1996) also does not require the establishment or appointment of a Board. Should the SIU want to appoint a Board, this will require amendments to the Act.

The Head of the SIU has informed me that he is of the opinion that if the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (SCOPA) sees the need for a Board to be established, it can advise, and the recommendation will be considered.

Matiase, Mr NS
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, in light of the Constitutional Court ruling in 2011 that the practice of repossessing homes without having the claims tested by a judge is illegal and the allegedly looming fifth eviction of Ernest Mashaba and his family from a fully paid-up house by a certain bank (name furnished), his department has intervened to ensure the illegal repossession of the house does not take place?

Reply:

It is not the responsibility of the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development to approach individuals whose Human Rights have been allegedly violated and to take up litigation on their behalf. Bodies such as Legal Aid South Africa and the Human Rights Commission are there to provide assistance to such individuals.

The Legal Aid South Africa (SA) has informed me that the Legal Aid SA has no records showing receipt of an application for legal aid relating to Mr Mashaba’s matter. The particulars of Mr Mashaba’s case came to Legal Aid SA’s attention when the GroundUp article of 29 May 2017 was published. Legal Aid SA has made contact with the Lungelo Letho Human Rights Foundation (LLHRF), the organization currently assisting Mr. Mashaba, to obtain his contact details and/or for LLHRF to facilitate contact with Mr. Mashaba. Legal Aid SA will consult with Mr. Mashaba, if he agrees to accept Legal Aid SA’s assistance, in order to obtain the relevant and necessary information where after assessment of what legal assistance can be rendered to ensure compliance with the Constitution and the relevant laws applicable to this matter and thereby ensure that Mr Mashaba’s rights are protected. Current Legal Aid Policy only permits assistance in civil matters where the matter has reasonable prospects of success based on all available evidence.

The Secretary-General of the Office of Chief Justice has furthermore informed me that following the Constitutional Court case of Gudwana v Steko Development CC, Case No: CCT44/10 delivered on 11 April 2011, in terms of which the Court ruled that it is unconstitutional for a Registrar of a High Court to declare immovable properties specially executable when ordering default judgment under Rule 31(5) of the Uniform Rules of Court to the extent that this permits the sale in execution of the home of a person, All the divisions of High Court issued Practice Notes to the effect that applications for an order declaring primary residence specially executable should only be heard by the court and not by the Registrar.

Reply:

(a), (b) and (c):

The Admission and Release System of the Department of Correctional Services does not provide for the capturing of the political affiliation of inmates and the requested information is therefore not available.

(1)(a) What is the total number of foreign nationals who are currently incarcerated in correctional centres for each specified crime and (b) what is the total number of foreign nationals from (i) Zimbabwe and (ii) Mozambique who are currently incarcerated in correctional centers for each specified crime;
(2) what is the annual cost to detain each prisoner in correctional centres;
(3) whether he will make a statement on the matter?

What (a) are the full reasons why the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) declined to prosecute the matter(s) under CAS 478/09/2015 lodged at the Polokwane Police Station, (b) is the name of the investigating officer in this matter and (c) is the name of the DPP who declined to prosecute?

Reply:

a) The office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘DPP’) in Polokwane declined to prosecute any person in connection with the matter on the premise that there was insufficient evidence to support the allegations levelled by the complainant.

b) (Person details furnished) from the Independent Police Investigative Directorate (‘IPID’), was the investigating officer in the matter.

Hoosen, Mr MH
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether there (a) is currently and/or (b) was a moratorium on the appointment of staff in his department in the past three financial years; if so, (i) what are the reasons for this and (ii) from which date has this been the case?

Reply:

(a) and (b) Yes, the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development is in the current financial year (2017/2018) not making appointments to all vacant permanent posts on its establishment, subject to the outcome of a critical post evaluation process mentioned in (i) hereunder. Since August 2016 (previous financial year - 2016/2017) the Department has not made appointments to vacant permanent posts on its establishment, save for one or two exceptions. There was no “moratorium” on the appointment of staff in the Department in the 2015/2016 and 2014/2015 financial years

(i) The reason for the moratorium is due to cuts in the budget item for compensation of employees, coupled with the additional pressures on the same budget item caused by (amongst others) increases in service benefits (e.g. housing and medical) which were above inflation; without an additional allocation to the Department to cover such increases. The Department has taken this stance in order to avoid possible over-spending on the compensation of employees budget, which is prohibited by the PFMA.

In the meantime, an internal committee has been established, by the Director General to assess the critical nature of each permanent vacant posts within the Department (with a bias towards posts at service points and core business functions); with a view to ensuring funding for that post and initiating the recruitment and selection processes for such identified critical posts.

(ii) Since August 2016.

Office of the Chief Justice

(a) and (b) No, there has not been a moratorium on the filling of posts in the past three years in Office of Chief Justice. Due to budget constraints posts for filling are prioritized according to the available Compensation of Employees (CoE) ceiling.

Department of Correctional Services:

a) No, the department does not have any moratorium.

b) No, the department did not have any moratorium in the last three years. The department however in November 2016 following the announcement of Cost Cutting measures by National Treasury re-priotized the filling of critical posts.

Whether (a) his department and (b) each entity reporting to him procured any services from and/or made any payments to (i) a certain company (name furnished) or (ii) any other public relations firms; if not, in each case, why not; if so, in each case, what (aa) services were procured, (bb) was the total cost, (cc) is the detailed breakdown of such costs, (dd) was the total amount paid, (ee) was the purpose of the payments and (ff) is the detailed breakdown of such payments?

Reply:

(a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) has neither procured any services from nor made any payments to:

(i) Bell Pottinger; and

(ii) Any other public relations firms

(b) I have been informed that the National Prosecuting Authority, Special Investigating Unit and Legal Aid South Africa have neither procured any services from, nor made payments to Bell Pottinger and any other public relations firms.

(c) The office of the Chief Justice has not procured any services from and made any payments to Bell Pottinger or any other public relations firms.

(d) The Department of Correctional Services, has not procured any services and/or any payments made to Bell Pottinger.

Whether any steps were taken against a certain person (name and details furnished) for granting an application for cellphone data in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, in the British American Tobacco South Africa matter, without allegedly properly considering the inadequate application; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
2) whether any steps were taken against the prosecutor in the specified matter for authorising access to cellphone data without allegedly properly considering the inadequate application; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

1. No. I have been informed that the Magistrates Commission has not received any formal complaint against the Magistrate.

2. No steps were considered necessary, as the prosecutor was not deemed to have breached any guidelines or legal prescripts. Applications for cell phone data in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, are based on an affidavit from the investigating officer motivating why cell phone data is needed in respect of the number(s) and period(s) stated in the affidavit.

The prosecutor also considers the affidavit before submitting it to the judicial officer, who is the final and independent arbiter on the application. There are thus three safeguards, in addition to the processes which may follow as part of a criminal prosecution which permits the accused to challenge the admission of evidence.

Whether any steps were taken against a certain person (name and details furnished) for granting an application for cellphone data in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, in the British American Tobacco South Africa matter, without allegedly properly considering the inadequate application; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details;
2) whether any steps were taken against the prosecutor in the specified matter for authorising access to cellphone data without allegedly properly considering the inadequate application; if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

1. No. I have been informed that the Magistrates Commission has not received any formal complaint against Magistrate HJ Venter.

2. No steps were considered necessary, as the prosecutor was not deemed to have breached any guidelines or legal prescripts. Applications for cell phone data in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, are based on an affidavit from the investigating officer motivating why cell phone data is needed in respect of the number(s) and period(s) stated in the affidavit.

What safeguards have been put in place to ensure that, pending the revision of the relevant legislation, current applications for cellphone data submitted in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, are (a) limited to the essential information only and (b) submitted in that form and not expanded to include information or data not authorised by the relevant magistrate or judge;
2) whether the relevant authorising magistrates and judges received any training regarding the consideration and granting of such applications in each of the past three financial years; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case;
3) what is the total number of (a) applications for cellphone data in terms of section 205 of the specified Act were made to (i) prosecutors, (ii) judges, (iii) regional magistrates and (iv) magistrates in the specified period and (b) the specified applications that were (i) granted and (ii) declined in each case

Reply:

1.Applications for cell phone data in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, are based on an affidavit from the investigating officer motivating why cell phone data is needed in respect of the number(s) and period(s) stated in the affidavit.

The prosecutor also considers the affidavit before submitting it to the judicial officer, who is the final and independent arbiter on the application. The Magistrate considers the application based on the affidavit but may also request that further information be provided and order that information not relevant to the case should not be used for any purpose There are thus three safeguards, in addition to the processes which may follow as part of a criminal prosecution which permits the accused to challenge the admission of evidence.

2. Yes. I have been informed that judges and magistrates receive continuous training and that applications in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act resorts under the Criminal Law and Procedure Curriculum of the South African Judicial Education Institute.

3. No specified period was included in the question. It should be noted that the National Prosecuting Authority does not specifically require prosecutors to record the number of applications for cell phone data, and whether or not these were successful.

Whether any processes and procedures have been put in place following the judgments handed down in the (a) British American Tobacco Company case and (b) Agliotti case in the Western Cape Division to ensure that the abuses identified in section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, are not repeated or perpetuated; if not, in each case, (i) why not and (ii) by what date will steps be taken in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

Reply:

There are no additional procedures and processes that have been put in place following the remarks made in the judgments of the British American Tobacco Company and Agliotti cases.

The existing processes as prescribed in section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act No. 51 of 1977 provide sufficient safeguards, as per the reply to question 1373.

(i) Applications for cell phone data in terms of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended, are based on an affidavit from the investigating officer motivating why cell phone data is needed in respect of the number(s) and period(s) stated in the affidavit. The prosecutor also considers the affidavit before submitting it to the judicial officer, who is the final and independent arbiter on the application. There are thus three safeguards, in addition to the processes which may follow as part of a criminal prosecution which permits the accused to challenge the admission of evidence.

Whether his department is in the process of revising (a) the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act, Act 70 of 2002 and (b) any other interception legislation; if not, what is the position in each case; if so, what progress has been made in each case;
2) whether each process is inclusive of a revision of section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act, Act 51 of 1977, as amended; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what are the relevant details in each case?

Reply:

1. (a) Yes.

(b) The Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of

Communication–related Information Act (RICA), 2002 (Act No. 70 of 2002) has been earmarked for revision and appropriate amendments. This is as a result of a number of requests for amendments that have been received from various quarters and also as a result of concerns regarding the implementation of the RICA which have been brought to the attention of the Department. These requests relate, among others, to the following:

the need to enhance governance, transparency and accountability mechanisms in order to oversee the interception of communications;

the need to give further consideration to the compulsory registration of SIM-cards and the regulation thereof; and

the broadening of RICA to cater for the combatting of cybercrime, making provision for other forms of electronic surveillance and regulating the use of remote access tools to investigate crime.

The Department is still in an investigative and initial drafting phase. A draft Bill is not yet available. Discussions with some of the law enforcement agencies regarding certain proposed amendments are under way. Public consultation will follow once the Department has processed the draft Bill through the required internal processes.

2. Yes. Section 15 of the RICA deals with the availability of other procedures for obtaining real-time or archived communication-related information. In terms of this section, the availability of the procedures in respect of the provision of real-time or archived communication-related information provided for in sections 17 and 19 of the RICA (applications to the interception judge for real-time communication-related and archived communication related-directions) does not preclude obtaining such information in respect of any person in accordance with a procedure prescribed in any other Act. However, in terms of section 15 of the RICA any real-time or archived communication-related information which is obtained in terms of such other Act may not be obtained on an ongoing basis.

In this regard, section 205 of the Criminal Procedure Act (CPA), 1977 (Act No. 51 of 1977) is relevant. Section 205 of the CPA deals with the power of a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, upon the request of a Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) or a public prosecutor authorized thereto by the DPP, to require the attendance before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, for examination by the DPP or the public prosecutor authorized thereto by the DPP, of any person who is likely to give material or relevant information as to any alleged offence, whether or not it is known by whom the offence was committed. If such person furnishes that information to the satisfaction of the DPP or the public prosecutor concerned prior to the date on which he or she is required to appear before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate, he or she is under no further obligation to appear before a judge, regional court magistrate or magistrate.

The Department is aware of concerns relating to the application of section 205 of the CPA in order to obtain real-time or archived communication-related information. Since section 205 of the CPA can be used to obtain material and relevant information regarding any alleged offence and not only information relating to communication as provided for in the RICA, the Department will consider amendments to section 15 of the RICA together with the amendments referred to in question 1 above.

(a) What is the total number of applications for cellphone data in terms of section 19 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act, Act 70 of 2002, that were submitted in the period 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2017 and (b) of the specified applications, what is the total number that was (i) granted and (ii) declined in each case?

Reply:

a) I have been informed that the total number of applications for cellphone data in terms of Section 19 of the Regulation of Interception of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act, Act 70 of 2002 that were submitted in the period 1 January 2014 to 31 March 2017 is 866.

Whether (a) his department and (b) each entity reporting to him has (i) procured any services from and/or (ii) made any payments to the Decolonisation Foundation; if not, in each case, what is the position in this regard; if so, what (aa) services were procured, (bb) were the total costs, (cc) is the detailed breakdown of the costs, (dd) was the total amount paid, (ee) was the purpose of the payments and (ff) is the detailed breakdown of the payments in each case?

Reply:

a) The Department of Justice and Constitutional Development has neither procured any services from Decolonisation Foundation nor made any payment to Decolonization Foundation

Currently, in the context of its mandate, the Department does not anticipate any dealings or engagement with the Foundation.

b) The National Prosecuting Authority, Special Investigating Unit and Legal Aid South Africa have informed me that they have neither procured anything from, nor made any payments to the Decolonization Foundation.

c) The office of the Chief Justice has not conducted any business with the Decolonization Foundation.

d) The Department of Correctional Services has not conducted any business with the Decolonization Foundation.

Whether the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) has received a case for prosecution from the SA Police Service (SAPS) with regard to its investigation into the break-in at the Office of the Chief Justice on 18 March 2017; if so, (a) on what date, (b) what progress has been made to date and (c) what are the further relevant details;
2) (a) whether the NPA is assisting the SAPS in its investigation of the specified break-in; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

1. (a) The police has submitted the docket to the prosecution on 9 May 2017.

(b) There is still a considerable amount of investigation outstanding, and further investigation is currently underway.

(c) Due to the fact that there is still a lot of investigation outstanding, on 17 May 2017 the prosecution postponed the matter in court to 11 July 2017, to allow further investigation. The accused were released on bail.

2. The prosecutor examined the docket and provided further guidance for police investigation.

Whether any correctional facility in the country employs private contractors for food catering services; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, (a) what is the name of each such facility, (b) what is the name of each such facility,, (c) on what basis was each contract awarded, (d) what is the (i) duration and (ii) total cost of each contract and (e) what are the (i) names and (ii) addresses of each catering service contractor?

All bids received were evaluated and adjudicated per Management Area in accordance with the requirements stipulated in the terms of reference document, the evaluation criteria stipulated in the special conditions of contract and in accordance with the Preferential Procurement Policy Framework Act (PPPFA) and its regulations.

The contracts were awarded according to PPPFA Regulations of 2011 paragraph 6. (5) which stipulates the following “Subject to regulation 7, the contract must be awarded to the tenderer who scores the highest total number of points”.

The successful bidders scored the highest total number of points on price and BBBEE per Management Area and were awarded as such.

(d) what is the

(i) duration and

Thirty six (36) months except for Groenpunt Management Area which is twenty four (24) months.

Stander, Ms T
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

On which dates has the Department of Basic Education (DBE) requested assistance from his department to obtain the sexual offenders list;
2) Did his department assist in this regard; if not, why not; if so, how?

Reply:

1. No, the Department of Basic Education has not requested assistance from the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) to obtain the list of sexual offenders. It must be noted that section 52 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences and Related Matters) Amendment Act, 2007 (Act No 23 of 2007) requires the confidentiality and non-disclosure of any information contained in the National Register for Sex Offenders (NRSO). The Registrar of the National Register for Sex Offender is only allowed to disclose information from the register upon receipt of an application that gives effect to the provisions of Chapter 6 of the Act or in response to a court order to that effect. No such application or court order has been received by the Registrar concerning the DBE’s request.

2) No, as the Department of Justice & Constitutional Development has not received any application from the Department of Basic Education for the disclosure of certain information contained in the National Register for Sex Offenders. As earlier indicated, the NRSO is kept in a confidential manner, which essentially means that it can only be accessed by way of an application to the Registrar of the National Register for Sex Offenders by the following category of persons:-

(i) a Relevant Authority in terms of section 48(1) of the Act ;

(ii) an employee in respect of her own particulars;

(iii) a person applying for a license or approval to manage or operate any entity -section 47(2) of the Act;

(iv) a person applying to become a foster parent –section 48 (2) of the Act; and

(v) any person applying in respect of his or her own particulars.

It is therefore important to note that should the Department of Basic Education wishes to ascertain whether or not the names of teachers appear in the National Register of Sex Offenders, it must apply to the Registrar of the NRSO for a prescribed certificate, as required by the Act.

Whether there is any position of (a) chief executive officer, (b) chief financial officer and/or (c) chief operating officer that is currently vacant in each entity reporting to him; if so, (i) how long has each specified position been vacant and (ii) what is the reason for each vacancy;
2) have the vacancies been advertised; if so, (a) were interviews done and (b) on what date will the vacancies be filled;
3) (a) what is the total number of persons who are currently employed in the specified positions in an acting capacity, (b) for what period has each person been acting in each position and (c) has any of the specified persons applied for the positions?

Reply:

A. South African Human Rights Commission

The position of Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the South African Human Rights Commission (SAHRC) is currently vacant. The post became vacant on 1 October 2016 as a result of the then CEO’s resignation. The position has been vacant for a period of six (6) months.

The position was advertised on 16 October 2016 in the Sunday Times newspaper and on the SAHRC’s website. The recruitment process could only be commenced in January 2017 after the commencement of the term of office of Commissioners. It is projected for the successful candidate to be appointed effectively from 1 June 2017.

Two employees are currently employed in acting capacities, which have been necessitated by the CEO’s vacancy, namely: the Chief Financial Officer (CFO) as Acting CEO, and Finance Manager as Acting CFO, both from 1 October 2016 to date. The Acting CEO has applied for the CEO’s position.

B) The Legal Aid South

Legal Aid South Africa does not have any position of a Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer and/or Chief Operating Officer that is currently vacant. These posts were filled as at 31 March 2017.

Not applicable

Not applicable

C) Special Investigating Unit

The Special Investigating Unit (SIU) does not have any vacancy in the positions of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer. The SIU does not have a position of the Chief Operating Officer.

Not applicable

Not applicable

D) Department of Correctional Services

1. (a) Yes

(b) Yes

(c) No

(i) Position of the CEO: Inspecting Judge: Has been vacant since 2011/05/01

COO: Since 2015/02/28

CEO Post

(ii) The delay in filling the post is attributed to the demise of Judge Sikweyiya and the process of appointing Judge Westhuizen.

COO Post

The Department commenced with a process of reviewing the organizational structure in line with the new service delivery model and as a result the process of filling the post was suspended.

2. CEO: (a) Yes and (b)it is anticipated that it will be filled within 90 days

(1) Was the position of Director: Policy and Research: Remand Detention Systems at the Head Office of his department advertised; if so, (a) on what date was the specified position advertised and (b) where;
(2) how many applications were received for the relevant position;
(3) (a) how many persons were shortlisted and (b) what are the relevant details of the shortlisted persons, including (i) names, (ii) relevant qualifications and (iii) previous experience;
(4) (a) how was the panel that determined the shortlisting constituted and (b) what criteria were used to determine which persons were shortlisted?

Whether, with reference to his reply to question 203 on 14 March 2017, case number 2016/37284 has been brought before the courts; if not, on what date is the case expected to be heard; if so, (a) what was the outcome of the court case and (b) will he provide Mrs K Jooste with a copy of the court judgment?

Figlan, Mr AM
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

With regards to the case number 2013/33571 between the residents of the Angelo informal settlement vs Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Council heard in the Johannesburg High Court, what was the outcome of the court?
(2) Will he furnish Mr AM Figlan with a copy of the full judgement?

Alberts, Adv A
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

Whether, with reference to his reply to question 2718 on 5 January 2017, the Government intends to ratify the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR); if not, why not; if so, what timeframe has been set for the process;
2) whether the Government will draft legislation, as prescribed by section 231(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, to put the ICESCR into operation locally once it has been ratified; if so, what are the relevant details (a) in respect of the nature of the legislation foreseen by the Government and (b) regarding when it will be put in place?

Reply:

1. With reference to my recent response to question no. 2718 in this regard, I wish to confirm that the matter is receiving Government’s attention. It is anticipated that the Cabinet will be approached during the current financial year (2017/18) with a recommendation.

2. No. As indicated in my response above, the methodology of using pre-existing legislation to give effect to subsequent treaty obligations was adopted in the case of South Africa’s ratification of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This is in accordance with section 231(4) of the Constitution and widely accepted international practice.

Using this method, the substance of the ICESCR provisions can be deemed to be incorporated and are part of the South African law (if regard is had to relevant pre-existing legislation, regulations and codes on education, water, health, social security, housing, labour, amongst others). Furthermore the Bill of Rights entrenched in Chapter 2 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, draws its inspiration from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) and the two United Nations International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights as well as Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

With reference to the Minister of Police’s replies to (a) question 3723 on 2 November 2015, (b) question 62 on 29 February 2016 and (c) oral question 98 on 25 May 2016, (i) what is the current status of the National Prosecuting Authority’s investigation into docket CAS 123/03/2014, opened at the Nkandla Police Station regarding eight charges of corruption against the President, Mr Jacob G Zuma, in terms of the Prevention and Combatting of Corrupt Activities Act, Act 12 of 2004, for his alleged complicity in the alleged misappropriation of public funds to upgrade his personal residence at Nkandla, (ii) which unit is the specified investigation currently with, (iii) what are the names of the persons that have been questioned to date and (iv) by what date is it to be expected that the specified investigation will be finalized?

Did (a) his department or (b) any entity reporting to him participate in the Dialogue with the President: Unpacking of the SONA 2017 on Radical Economic Transformation Implementation event hosted at the Oyster Box Hotel in Umhlanga, Durban, on 25 February 2017; if so, what amount was spent in each case;
2) did (a) his department or (b) any entity reporting to him participate in the auction of the (i) souvenirs or (ii) personal belongings of the President of the Republic, Mr Jacob G Zuma; if so, (aa) which items were purchased and (bb) at what cost, in each case?

Reply:

Neither the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) nor its entities (National Prosecuting Authority, Special Investigating Unit, the Office of the Chief Justice and Legal Aid South Africa) and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) participated in the Dialogue with the President: Unpacking of the SONA 2017 on Radical Economic Transformation Implementation event hosted at the Oyster Box Hotel in Umhlanga, Durban, on 25 February 2017.

Neither the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development (DoJ&CD) and the Department of Correctional Services (DCS) nor its entities participated in the auction of the souvenirs or personal belongings of the President of the Republic, Mr Jacob G Zuma.

Whether a certain person (details furnished) signed a declaration of interests when he was appointed to the specified position; if not, (a) why not and (b) by what date will the specified person sign a declaration of interests; if so,
(2) Did the specified person declare the golf clubs and bag that he received as a gift from a certain person (name furnished); if so,
(3) Whether any action has been taken against the specified person for accepting the gift, if not, why not; if so, what are the relevant details?

What is the (a) make, (b) model, (c) price and (d) date on which each vehicle was purchased for the use of the National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Shaun Abrahams, since his appointment to the specified position on 18 June 2015?

Whether (a) (Furnished details) and (b) (furnished details) resumed their duties at the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA); if so, (i) on what date did the specified persons resume their duties at the NPA and (ii) what course of action has he advised the President of the Republic, Mr Jacob G Zuma, to take in each case?

Reply:

The National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) informed me that (the persons details furnished) are on special leave and they have not resumed their duties at the NPA. They were granted leave to appeal by the North Gauteng High Court and the President of the Republic communicated in public that he will await the conclusion of the court processes before considering whether any action is necessary. .

Whether a certain person (name and details furnished) serves on a select committee run under the auspices of the Minister of Police, Mr N P T Nhleko, and the State Security Agency; if so, (a) what amount has the specified person’s involvement in terms of (i) travel and (ii) accommodation expenses cost and (b) who bears these costs;
2) does the specified select committee meet with the President of the Republic, Mr Jacob G Zuma; if so, on what basis;
3) (a) how many flights has the specified person undertaken since his appointment to the specified position, (b) how many of the flights were in business class, (c) who is responsible for the costs of these flights and (d) what amount did these flights cost;
4) (a) what amount was spent on hotel accommodation for the specified person since his appointment and (b) who is responsible for the costs of the accommodation?

Reply:

The National Prosecuting Authority has informed me that the person was seconded to a Reference Group under the auspices of the Secretariat of the Minister of Police during the period 2014 to 2015, with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for South Gauteng, Advocate Andrew Chauke and under former National Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Mxolisi Nxasana. All costs were covered by the Secretariat of the Police, details of which can be obtained from the aforementioned Secretariat.

The Reference Group did not, at any, stage meet with the Honourable President of the Republic, Mr Jacob G. Zuma.

& (4) The required information is in the possession of the Secretariat of Police from whom same should be requested.

Whether a criminal charge of rape has been placed on the court roll against a certain person (name and details furnished); if so, how has he advised the President of the Republic, Mr Jacob G Zuma, to proceed in this instance?

Whether his department procured any services from and/or made any payments to (a) Mr Mzwanele Many, (b) the Progressive Professionals Forum, (c) the Decolonization Fund and/or (d) the Black Business Council; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what (i) services were procured, (ii) was total cost, (iii) is the detailed breakdown of such costs, (iv) was the total amount paid, (v) was the purpose of the payments and (vi) is the detailed breakdown of such payments in each case?

Whether Judge Mokgoro authorised the State Security Agency to intercept the communications of any individuals who worked for the SA Broadcasting Corporation (a) in the (i) 2014-15 and (ii) 2015-16 financial years and (b) since 1 April 2016; if so, (aa) which department requested the interception, (bb) in respect of which individual’s communication was permission granted, (cc) what was the motivation for the interception of each individual's communication, (dd) for what period was the authorisation granted and (ee) on which date was permission granted in each case?

Reply:

The Honourable Member should note that Judge Yvonne Mokgoro was indeed the designated Judge during 2014/15, 2015/16 financial years until 31 May 2016, appointed in terms of the Regulation of Interceptions of Communications and Provision of Communication-Related Information Act, 70 of 2002 ("RICA").

Judge Makgoro has informed me that she has not to the best of her recollection authorized the State Security Agency to intercept the communications of any individuals said to be working for the South African Broadcasting Corporation during the periods mentioned in paragraph 1 above.

Following my response in paragraph 2 above, please note that questions (aa), (bb), (cc), (dd), and (ee) do not apply.

1) (a) What is the total number of persons who will be accompanying the Public Protector on her Back to the People Road Show, (b) how many of the specified persons (i) are employed at the Public Protector’s office and (ii) were hired specifically for the purpose of the road show and (c) what is the designated role of each specified person;
2) (a) how many places (i) did the road show visit since 1 April 2016 and (ii) will the road show visit in the 2017-18 financial year and (b) in each instance, what are the relevant details relating to (i) dates and (ii) place?

He participate as the speaker during the programme, participates in dialogue with stakeholders, participate to take the public`s services delivery conduct failure complants and advises complainant on way forward.

(2) Mr Themba TC Dlamini, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) (attended Kwazulu Natal and Free State visits). He is the person responsible for the implementation of the overall programme, which is the target of the 2016/2017 Annual Performance Plan. The entire operations team reports to him.

(a) What is the total budgetary allocation towards the office of the Public Protector’s Back to the People Road Show in the (i) 2016-17 and (ii) 2017-18 financial years and (b) for each year, what are the specific amounts budgeted in respect of (i) travel, (ii) accommodation, (iii) venue and facilities hire, (iv) advertising costs, (v) subsistence and (vi) any other related itemised expenditure?

Reply:

a) The budget allocation for the Public Protector `s Roadshow in the

(i) 2016/2017 financial year is: R1.5 million (for roll-out in all 9 provinces from the Complaints and Stakeholder management unit. From that amount each province was allocated R100 000 specifically for roadshow)

(ii) 2017/18 financial year is: not yet determined, awaiting approval from the National Assembly of the Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan and 2017/18 Budget.

What is the (a) make, (b) model, (c) price and (d) date on which each vehicle was purchased for use by (i) him and (ii) his deputies (aa) in the (aaa) 2014-15 and (bbb) 2015-16 financial years and (bb) since 1 April 2016?

Did not purchase any vehicle in the 2014/15, 2015/16 financial years and since 1 April 2016. The vehicles Deputy Minister is currently using have been bought in the 2013/14 financial year.

The table below provides details of vehicles purchased for use by the Deputy Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development:

Question type

FINANCIAL YEARS

2014-15

2015-16

Since 1 April 2016

a) Make

Two (2) Toyota Lexus

No vehicle purchased in the 2015-16 financial year, and since 1 April 2016 to date. The Deputy Minister is currently using the same vehicles purchased in July 2014.

2.b) Model

ES250 EX

c) Price

R438 152.00 per vehicle

d) Date purchased

July 2014

N.B: The two vehicles are split as follows: One vehicle for usage in Cape Town and surrounding areas, and the other vehicle for usage in Pretoria and surrounding areas.

Deputy Minister of Correctional Services

(a) (b) (c)(d) (i) The Deputy Minister of Correctional Services has two official vehicles. A Mercedes Benz S400 which is utilised in Pretoria and Mercedes Benz ML400 for Cape Town. The details of official vehicles for the Deputy Minister as follows:

(1)(a) How many instances of physical abuse of inmates by wardens have been reported at the St Albans Prison in Port Elizabeth since 1 January 2014 to date and (b)(i) how many investigations into the cases were finalised and (ii) what was the outcome of each case;

Reply:

The case was argued on the 13 December 2016 and the reason for the removal of the case from the urgent court roll is that the court found that the matter was not urgent and advised that it could be placed in the ordinary motion court roll.

(1)What (a) facilities are available for prisoners at the St Albans prison in Port Elizabeth to receive contact visits and (b) are the relevant prison policies in this regard;
(2) (a) what facilities are available in the specified prison for medical treatment of inmates and (b) how many (i) qualified doctors and (ii) registered nurses are employed (aa) full-time and (bb) part-time in these facilities;
(3) (a) what facilities are available in the St Albans prison for prisoners’ personal hygienic needs, including washing facilities, trimming of hair and nails and (b) what are the relevant policies put in place in this regard?

Reply:

St Albans Medium B Correctional Centre: accommodates 40 people at a time

St Albans Maximum Correctional Centre: accommodates 40 people at a time

(b) Correctional Services Order 3, Chapter V (3)(f)(i)(cc) stipulates that all visits are non-contact visits, but attempts should be made to allow contact visits for offenders in privilege group A. Offenders in privilege group A may however not lay claim to contact visits, as security considerations, the behaviour and adaptation of the offender remain the primary factors to be considered. The same apply to remand detainees.

2. (a) Each Centre has a clinic to attend to the sick inmates. There is also a 24 hour manned hospital for critically ill inmates.

(b) (i) One permanently appointed doctor.

(ii) There are thirty (30) registered nurses.

(aa) All are full–time employees

(bb) The facilities have two part–time doctors.

3. (a) Each housing unit has ablution block for inmates to shower and wash their clothes. The centres have hair clippers that are issued in each unit and

a dedicated room where inmates go and have their hair trimmed.

(b) Correctional Services Order 3, Chapter V, Sub Section (3)(f)(i)(cc) stipulates that “Head of Prisons must ensure that a qualified barber or

prisoner with appropriate experience is appointed to cut prisoners’ hair”.

(1) Is his department working with the Department of Public Works to resolve the water supply crisis at the Barberton Prison Farm, if not, why not; if so,
(2) will the pipeline to the livestock farming area be closed; if not, why not; if so (a) by what date will it be closed and (b) how will the livestock be fed in the interim;
(3) will repairs be done to the (a) existing pumping system at the dams, (b) seven boreholes on prison property, (c) pipelines from the boreholes to the reservoirs and (d) plumbing inside the prison areas; if not, why not; if so, by what date will work commence and be completed in each case;
(4) will new boreholes and pipelines to the reservoirs be refurbished and/or replaced; if not, why not; if so, by what date will work (a) commence and (b) be completed in each case?

Reply:

(2) No; the pipeline to the livestock farming will not be closed, because it will be against the requirements of Animals Protection Act 71 of 1962, Sec (1) (c) & (e).

(2) (a) Not Applicable

(b) Not applicable

(3) (a) No, the pumping system is still new as it was installed in May 2016, at this stage the pumping system is well functioning so there is no need for repair.

(b) Yes, the Department of Public works conducted assessment on boreholes, out of seven (07), four (04) were re-drilled. The water from boreholes was tested and found to be in good condition for consumption.

(c) No, there was no existing pipeline which requires repair at this stage.

(d) No, the life span of plumbing at Barberton Farm is still in good condition.

(4) No,

(a)(b) city of Mbombela has started to dig a trench which will be connecting boreholes to the reservoir.

Maynier, Mr D
to ask the
Minister of Justice and Correctional Services

With reference to the final report prepared by a certain person (name furnished) into the collapse of African Bank, entitled African Bank Limited: Investigation in terms of s69A of the Banks Act, 94 of 1990, which has been referred to the National Director of Public Prosecutions and his reply to question 1700 on 30 August 2016, what is the name of the prosecutor assigned to the matter;
2) whether the (a) perusal of the specified report has been finalised and/or (b) final report has been referred for further investigation; if not, in each case, why not; if so, what are the full details in each case?

Reply:

1. The matter was assigned to a Senior State Advocate within the Special Commercial Crime Unit who was tasked with the review of the report.

2. (a) Yes,

(b) The National Prosecuting Authority is currently preparing its own report based on the findings of the curator. It is this report which will indicate what the next course of action should be. It is not possible to say at this stage whether or not the matter will be referred for further investigation as that will be dependent on the recommendations to be made in the said report. The finalisation of the said report took extraordinarily long because the report of the curator is quite voluminous. However, the indications are that the report is reaching its final stages, and will be concluded within a short space of time.

(1)(a) How many (i) inmates died of unnatural causes in the St Albans Prison in Port Elizabeth in the 2016 calendar year and (ii) inquest dockets were opened to investigate the deaths and (c) what are the full details in each case in respect of (i) progress, (ii) outcome and (iii) recommendations or applicable follow-up action to date;
(2) Are any security cameras installed at the specified prison operated and/or owned by a private security company; if not, what is the position in this regard; if so, what are the relevant details?

Reply:

1. (a)(i) There are (3) three inmates that died of unnatural causes in the St Albans Correctional Centres in Port Elizabeth in the 2016 calendar year. All three (3) died on 26 December 2016.

(ii) The case has been reported to the SAPS with SAPS CAS number 291/12/2016. The SAPS and the Court will decide on the inquest process to follow.

(c) (i) The investigations by the South African Police Services are still in progress.

The internal DCS Investigation Report is currently under consideration of the Regional Commissioner for a decision.

(ii) & (iii) The outcome of the investigation will be communicated and implemented after the decisions are made on recommendations in consultation with the National Office. The Regional Management is currently addressing functional and administrative issues of St Albans Maximum Correctional Centre and follow-up action will be developed on finalisation of the Investigation.

2. Yes, cameras have been installed to monitor the operations in the kitchen unit at this specified Correctional Centre are operated and owned by a private company – in terms of the current nutrition contract.